Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -24 Mumbai, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Repairs and Maintenance of building and Plant & Machinery aggregating to Rs. 11,54,092/- on the ground that the said expenditure is cap8ital in nature.
Zydus Takeda healthcare Pvt ltd., Mumbai - 2 -
The CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, erred in disposing the appeal exparte vide his order dated 31.10.2019.
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that two notices issued on 4th September 2019 and 25th October 2019 were sent on the e-mail address of the retired Managing Director and therefore, the said e-mail was disabled on his retirement on 31st October 2018. Hence no notice of hearing was ever served or issued to the assessee company and hence the exparte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
4. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
2. At the time of hearing, The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte for non prosecution of appeal by the assessee and prayed for one more opportunity of hearing before CIT(A) and has a good case on merits. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued on 4-09-2019 & 25-10- 2019.Therefore,theCIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested/serious in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte considering the material available on record. We on perusal of the CIT(A)
Zydus Takeda healthcare Pvt ltd., Mumbai - 3 - found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notice of hearing, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to pursue the appeal. We find that the assessee company has raised grounds of appeal challenging additions of the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non appearance one being the notice was sent to email address of retired managing director.We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before the CIT(A) along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.